onepiecefandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Levely Arc
__TOC__ Yonkou Ok this really needs to end. Yonkou literally means Four Emperors. Luffy can't be a 5th member of something that means 4. The talk page for Yonkou already decided not to call him one too. SeaTerror (talk) 06:37, May 5, 2018 (UTC) Whatever we want to believe, as of now, Luffy is an emperor, meaning the Yonko do not exist anymore, they are the Gokou. In my personal opinion, I think Luffy is like an intern emperor trying to get the job but he won't get the job until after Wano. BloodKills (talk) Morgans doesn't decide that. It was just his opinion. SeaTerror (talk) 06:54, May 5, 2018 (UTC) Morgans only wrote that to sell papers. It's not official. Morgans isn't the Marines. 06:57, May 5, 2018 (UTC) No one decides it. It's just how the world sees someone. There is no one who can claim someones else to be an emperor, it's just the popoular opinion. Watch Tekking101, Joy_Boy_Theories and Black Leg VinSmoke's videos on the matter, you might understand what I mean BloodKills (talk) The talk page decided not to officially place him in the group; that doesn't change anything about what Morgans considers him. It makes no sense to call him an Emperor when that's not the word we use for anything else related to the Yonko on the wiki Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 16:10, May 5, 2018 (UTC) To be clear, I don't object to referring to him as "The Fifth Emperor". But the Yonko should be mentioned with that, considering we never use the word Emperor anywhere else except for Emperors of the Underworld. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 16:28, May 5, 2018 (UTC) "Fifth Emperor of the Sea" is literally what it says in the chapter. ５番目の「海の皇帝 (Go-banme no Umi no Kōtei). Why wouldn't you use the phrase Oda uses? 17:17, May 5, 2018 (UTC) Actually it does make sense not to use the word Yonkou since it LITERALLY means Four Emperors. You can't have a 5th member of something that means four. So anything where it mentions the word Yonkou and relating to Luffy like that should be removed. SeaTerror (talk) 19:09, May 5, 2018 (UTC) Personally I feel it is more of an unofficial announcement, and is better left as a minor note or trivia piece for both here and the Yonko page, but should not be considered as official until the later appropriate time when more information becomes available. -Adv193 (talk) 19:13, May 5, 2018 (UTC) If there's a trivia note then it should just say Emperor. SeaTerror (talk) 19:31, May 5, 2018 (UTC) Is this the big thread for Luffy's status? Or is the bulk of it happening somewhere else? In any case, you know how in the real world, there are a couple people who have been called "The Fifth Beatle"? Well there are still only four actual Beatles. Morgans gave Luffy a nickname, and it's likely going to stick. The world is going to know Luffy as "The Fifth Emperor", just as they knew him as a "Supernova" and "The Worst Generation". But I don't think this position actually affects the status of the current four Emperors. It's a one-sided relationship. So if I had it my way, we would consider "Fifth Emperor" to be canon as it pertains to Luffy, but colloquial as it pertains to the Yonko. 20:10, May 5, 2018 (UTC) The decision regarding Luffy's status was already made at Talk:Yonko. Regarding the term, it should be 'Emperor' for the reasons stated by ST and the AWC. 20:32, May 5, 2018 (UTC) Let's translate Yonko and Shichibukai Meshack (talk) 20:53, May 5, 2018 (UTC) No. SeaTerror (talk) 21:00, May 5, 2018 (UTC) If Luffy was not said to be a Goko by the Marines then he's not a Goko Meshack (talk) 21:04, May 5, 2018 (UTC) That has nothing to do with your last comment. SeaTerror (talk) 21:53, May 5, 2018 (UTC) I mean if that's what you decide, that's what you decide, but until the manga or Oda says otherwise, he is an emperor (Unofficial emperor shall we say) BloodKills (talk) Maybe an Emperor but not a Yonkou. SeaTerror (talk) 00:23, May 6, 2018 (UTC) Yonkou literally means 4 emperors, which is why the term is not Gokou, unless said otherwise. Also, like I said earlier, the Marines don't decide who is an emperor, it's never been said how an emperor is crowned, and until we know that, you can't say Luffy is or isn't an emperor in any other matter than what we know currently, and currently he is concidered the fifth emperor, meaning until said otherwise, the Yonkou are now the Gokou. BloodKills (talk) Actually they aren't because that's not the term that was used in the manga. It wouldn't matter even if it was since Morgans doesn't decide that. Anyway you missed the point. It says right now that Luffy is considered a 5th Yonkou which is simply not true since Yonkou means Four Emperors. It should say Emperor alone or nothing. SeaTerror (talk) 01:07, May 6, 2018 (UTC) While I still feel as though this designation does highlight the pitfalls of not translating Yonko and Shichibukai, I'll change my mind on this and agree to using "Emperor", though it still wouldn't hurt to occasionally mention how it relates to the Yonko for clarity. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 01:17, May 6, 2018 (UTC) It says in the manga, he is concidered a 5th emperor, not Yonkou. Oda specifically said emperor for a reason, it's not that hard to understand.I see a lot of people on different forums confused about it. Anyway, yes, it does matter what Morgans says, because he is the leader of the world economics journal, meaning if he says something people will think it's true, and like I've said in past posts, no one can decide on who is or isn't an emperor (Unless said in the story or an sbs), emperors are decided by the popular opinion (As of what we know right now: Chp 903) BloodKills (talk) "Gobanme no Koutei" That is not Gokou. The manga did not use the term Gokou. Also it does not matter since somebody who creates fake news doesn't decide who becomes a member of a pirate group. What you are stating is speculation. SeaTerror (talk) 03:28, May 6, 2018 (UTC) No, what was said was "The fifth emperor of the seas has emerged!!". Also, correction, what you need to write is that he 'created', not creates, as we don't know if he has always been Fake news Morgans, this is one time out of one that we are seeing an article by him, and again, NO ONE decides who is or isn't an emperor, as it's not a position you can earn through a specific means like the supernova's or the warlords. The supernovas are the 11 rookie pirates with over a 100M Berri bounty that met at the Sabaody Archipelago 2 years ago. The Warlords are the 7 pirates sanctioned by the world government to be legal pirates in exchange for helping them at the drop of a pin. The emperors on the other hand, are just the strongest pirates in the world. If the world sees Luffy as one of the strongest pirates in the world, then he is an emperor. No one can give the emperor status to a pirate, it's the interpretation of how the world sees a specific pirate, this case being Luffy. But for the final time, his status has JUST been announced, so we can't say anything definitive until it's stated in the story, or in an sbs. BloodKills (talk) His status hasn't been announced since "Gobanme no Koutei" doesn't mean "Gokou". SeaTerror (talk) 07:08, May 6, 2018 (UTC) His status has been annouced, what do you think "The fifth emperor of the sea has emeged!!" means? Plus, you know Gobanme no Koutei translates to '5 Lovers', (According to 5 different translation sites) so idk what you're talking about. BloodKills (talk) Because you don't know what you are talking about. "Gobanme no Koutei" is what the manga actually used, not Gokou. SeaTerror (talk) 17:29, May 6, 2018 (UTC) Again, never said Gokou was used, Yonkou wasn't used either. It's like you're not even reading what I'm saying. If you want, I can screenshot the page for you and show you exactly what it says, but it most certainly did not say '5 Lovers' BloodKills (talk) Of course it didn't use 5 lovers. It used Gobanme no Koutei. SeaTerror (talk) 20:58, May 6, 2018 (UTC) Which translates to '5 Lovers' BloodKills (talk) Should the commander's of the Revolutionary Army be apart of the Reverie arc information? If you need context, read our back and forth of removing and reposting of the information about the 4 Revolutionary Army commanders BloodKills (talk) How it is is good enough in the arc information. The story impact section is different since nothing was known about about the revolutionaries before. SeaTerror (talk) 19:35, May 22, 2018 (UTC) If characters introduction is to be mentioned, it should only be in story impact. Rhavkin (talk) 20:09, May 22, 2018 (UTC) I am a bit hesitant to include them in the story impact since we don't know what impact they'll have...but I'll be fine with the way it is now. There is no need to give detailed profiles of the commanders in the summary, especially since what was added wasn't even a summary. The arc summaries are supposed to be broad and quick summaries of what happens in the arc. If people want to know more about the commanders, they can look on their pages. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 20:20, May 22, 2018 (UTC) I mean, I agree with that, but if we really want to go through all this, then we should at least discuss whether to remove the powers and or ranks, but the information that they were introduced and that Morley is the silhouette in 801 needs to stay, as that is 100% important information to the current arcBloodKills (talk) Arc summaries aren't supposed to be quick. Otherwise they would be much smaller than how they are now. They're supposed to be synopses. SeaTerror (talk) 21:14, May 22, 2018 (UTC) I second SeaTerror BloodKills (talk) I'm not agreeing with you. I meant in general. An introduction and rank the way you want doesn't belong in a summary of something because it is out of place and ruins the flow of the article. SeaTerror (talk) 21:26, May 22, 2018 (UTC) I know that, that's why we're discusing where the information should be. I was agreeing with what you said about arc summaries BloodKills (talk) Does the edit I made to the summary look good? It names the commanders and goes into further detail about their actions, while still keeping the flow of the summary. We don't need to do a complete profile of them in this arc's page. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 03:52, May 23, 2018 (UTC) It works, but you should at least add their ranks ie. East, West, North, South commanders, then it would work for everyone. Flow, powers, ranks and section BloodKills (talk) Kaido's edit seems fine, though it could specify they're army commanders and not just regular executives. 07:45, May 23, 2018 (UTC) No Reverie Arc according to Editor According to Editor of One Piece, Naito, the Reverie Arc will be so short that it will not be considered a Arc. So, will this part be in the Whole Cake Island Arc or in the Wano Country Arc ? 19:22, May 29, 2018 (UTC) He said that he personally doesn't consider it an arc. Without any alternative name, and since it doesn't fit with WCI or Wano, it's best to still call it Reverie Arc. Plus we have pages for other arcs that are less than 10 chapters anyways. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 19:54, May 29, 2018 (UTC) If Reverie and Wano are happening at the same time and the chapters are interwoven in some way, we should merge them into Wano. It will just be confusing otherwise. I agree it's fine as is for now, but if this continues ( little bit of Reverie, little bit of Wano, repeat), they should be merged. 03:17, July 7, 2018 (UTC) No proof the chapters are interwoven. It's just a very short are that has an open ending. For all we know, that editor doesn't consider other short arcs (Loguetown, Reverse Mountain, and Return to Sabaody) as arcs. one editor doesn't mean anything. Rhavkin (talk) 05:54, July 7, 2018 (UTC) Agree. The editor in question must be Oda's superior before we can do any course of action. Oda's editors don't have a great track record of being right. Last year they said we would get the Reverie Arc and then the Wano Arc at the end of the 2017 year. I'm in favor of keeping it as the Reverie Arc for now, but if we start going back and forth between the Reverie and Wano, then we can include it as part of the Wano arc. 17:29, July 7, 2018 (UTC) Majority. Rhavkin (talk) 21:08, July 22, 2018 (UTC) Since many reverie things happen within the wano arc, i think in general we should merge them CharlotteSmoothie (talk) 12:37, September 19, 2019 (UTC) We've had 2 Reverie focused chapters among the 47 chapters in this arc. Seems unnecessary. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 14:53, September 19, 2019 (UTC) They took place during the Wano arc therefore they only belong in the Wano arc. If a chapter focuses on something else entirely it doesn't mean it suddenly becomes it's own arc right in the middle of a different arc. SeaTerror (talk) 17:59, September 19, 2019 (UTC) Antagonist I think we can consider Charlos the main antagonist in this arc. He appeared in half on the chapters (906-908) and he is the only character that did anything against the characters. Rhavkin (talk) 05:54, July 7, 2018 (UTC) Why is it being called Levely? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my knowledge, and re-reads of this six chapter arc, it's never been refered to as Levely, always as Reverie. Has there been an sbs or something where Oda corrected something? BloodKills (talk) Look at the Levely page. See the infobox image? Oda wrote it as Levely there. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 02:52, October 26, 2018 (UTC) I never checked that page, I forgot it existed xD, anyway, I understand now, thanks. BloodKills (talk)